I’m wondering why the same question has been submitted twice, apparently by the same individual, under two separate pseudonyms?
Poster and readers alike, value that with few exceptions this is a low noise Forum, so quite unlike certain others where there is more misinformation than genuine knowledge. I’ve observed, misinformation gets quickly corrected here.
Quote: “I've been A/B'ing the headphone outputs between my Apollo Twin X and my Fireface UFX”
Was this a blind test?
Level corrected technically in the proper manner?
If not, its highly susceptible to many undesirable vagrancies which would completely devalue any claimed validity.
That of being genuinely meaningful or scientifically measurable in any form or manner other than that of singularly individual subjectivity. That’s if one regards blind tests, double blind tests, A/B tests and A/B/X tests as scientific, which probably isn’t a wise thing to do at all!
For, when musical sound enters our ears, it passes along the auditory nerves to our brain and into our short-term memory. Within mere milliseconds, the musical information or data presented is stripped of much of its harmonic information, before final transition into long-term memory, deeper within our brains for storage.
Many lossy audio file systems are inspired by and based upon that principle of auditory design. A system which allows algorithms to decide what amongst its immensely high detail is most essential and what is less important. Stripping the latter from the file, thus allow a great many music files to be contained in a comparatively much smaller space.
This is just one difficulty faced with A/B or any other similar testing methodology, even when performed under the most rigorous circumstances, which with respect, is not the case here.
You never get a second chance to hear anything for the first time! Is my axiom.
The importance I place upon this is based upon the belief that during repeated sessions of listening, the ear and brain gradually adjust themselves to accommodate and increasingly find more acceptable, sounds that initially, they reacted strongly and negatively to.
There are innumerable instances in voices, musical instruments, audio systems and recording equipment, that have led to these conclusions, over many decades.
In the early years of multi-track recording, mixing between recorders and overdubbing to increase tracks meant that final mix decisions had to be imposed on incomplete recordings.
The producer’s conscious mental vision of the completed mix enabled basic tracks to be decisively executed in proper balance that was unalterable thereafter. This required absolutely total confidence in hearing, understanding and decision making.
Modern technologies have meant this inestimable decisive ability has largely been lost by later generations, not required to commit to decisions.
Its loss however, spills out in many and varying forms of indecision.
Quote: “I'm using many pairs of high quality headphones like HD 650's, Neumann NDH 20's, and more.”
With due respect I’m not sure that is a good idea.
I collect audio equipment, have done so for many years, such that some years back I received a call from a Mastering Engineer from New York who had been given the job of Re-Mastering all the Rolling Stones (a popular British group) historical recordings for a collection to be called “Anthology”.
The problem was that as with many other artists, the early Rolling Stones recordings had been taped on a Three Track Tape Recorder. a machine no one seemed to have in working condition and he had been informed that I might be a person who could have one, or point him to where he might get one to be able to Re-Master the recordings.
As you may be aware, originally, modern recordings were recorded in mono, single track, later in stereo, two track. The problem was that early stereo recordings were very “ping pong”, with a heavy left and right image but a virtually non-existent central image. This was quickly compensated for by producing three track recorders, the additional track strongly reinforcing the central image.
These machines were short lived, only in use for a few years, as electronic means via pan controls were developed on Large Format Recording Consoles to solve the problem electronically and provide better, more creative depth and imaging to recordings. Ultimately, four track tape recorders, eight, sixteen, twenty four track tape recorders and above ensured that three track tape recorders became extinct.
The salient point being, I am familiar with a huge amount of equipment that most people have never even heard of, let alone know existed.
Here’s the thing.
I use Stax, Beyer, AKG, Sennheiser and a variety of other headphones for very specific purposes.
But in the studio, find it highly advisable to consistently utilise the flattest, most truthfully honest, speaker and headphone types.
Trying to decide the sonic differences between various pieces of recording equipment by continually swapping over monitoring devices, is most likely to lead to complete confusion in the mind of the listener, in my humble opinion.
The best monitoring devices be they speakers or headphones, are the ones you know, through and through. The ones that experience has taught you that if you adjust this knob (A) and it sounds like (B) it will result in the final recording as sounding like (C).
In other words, the best monitoring devices are the ones that are totally familiar to you. The ones that provide you with the ability to make subtle sonic adjustments with your recording equipment. Adjustments that you can predict the results of in a final mixed recording.
Consistency is a vastly undervalued commodity.
Consider that when you next return to an expensive restaurant where you previously enjoyed a spectacular meal, only to find the second visit, a huge disappointment to your high expectations.
Then ask the waiter how is it that McDonalds can produce a totally consistent culinary outcome through the entire world for small change, when they can’t produce a consistently excellent meal in the same restaurant, with the same chef, for a small fortune?
Good recording practice involves consistency in all its forms and standard operating procedures.
Quote: “Since my job revolves around audio and performing, my ears have become incredibly sharp over the years where I can hear the most subtle of details and differences. I actually do a lot and audio tweaking and troubleshooting for raw voiceover audio. Which requires intense listening and audio discernment skills.
Quote: “Would love to hear any insight/advice from anyone.”
With respect, I’m struggling to reconcile conflicting extremes in the original post.
Though professional discretion often prevents them from freely expressing unsolicited viewpoints.
My experience with recording and mastering engineers, has affirmed clarity of opinion as an exemplarily model they exhibit.
I think its entirely reasonable to expect someone with a hearing acuity at the scintillating level claimed, to have confidence in their own opinion.
Unless the “Dunning-Kruger Effect” is involved!
Though you would be wholly mistaken to presume that any such comment implied that I believed, that was the case in this instance. That would be a faulty presumption. Which neatly leads me to my next point.
Quote: “my dilemma: The UFX+ was released in 2016. I know the converters in the UFX+ will be better than my old UFX. However, the latest Apollo units are even newer than the UFX+.”
With due respect, there is a misleading presumption that underlies such lines of thought.
The problem with such a philosophy is the implied assumption that the latest, newest, product, is always going to be the best choice.
Are you prepared to take that line of presumption to experienced sound engineers and attempt to get them to swap their Vintage Neumann and AKG mics for the newest latest mic offerings?
See the problem?
Again, with respect, it’s based upon what Scientists, Psychologists and Philosophers call, “faulty thinking.” An entirely false assumption in the primary fundamentals right from the outset!
Personally, within the last year I have invested significantly in particular audio equipment that was not the latest model, based upon professional advice from well-placed individuals I respect, which has subsequently proven to be the very wisest choice possible.
I can remember discussing with Bob Katz (who came here to lecture after his heart operation) about older and newer audio equipment. Some say “old is better” some say “newer is better”, Bob says “to obtain an optimal result you need to use the best of the old and the best of the new.”
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/bo … ring-audio
I wholeheartedly agree with him.
Through my many links to industry, at times, I have had the opportunity to meet Formula 1 Drivers, as well as many other types of Racing.
The thing is, as important though the Driver is, unless they have the right Power Train, Aerodynamics, Set Up for the specific Race Track, Tyres, Racing Strategy, Pit Stop Team and of course Solid Reliability, they are unlikely to win.
In other words, it’s the TOTAL Package that delivers a winning Formula!
The thing about RME is not simply the transparent mic pre’s, delivering exemplary sound quality regardless of sound source and the versatile hardware with lots of inputs and outputs, giving unrivalled flexibility.
The renowned reliability of excellent hardware and software, in particular, the rock-solid drivers which are widely acclaimed by professionals everywhere. But also, the unparalleled TotalMix FX routing system, which in my humble opinion makes RME a no brainer, it’s so simple and intuitive to use.
In other words, the TOTAL Package, delivers a winning Formula!
Here’s the thing.
It doesn’t matter whether you are any kind of creative person. Portrait photographer, record producer, whatever.
It’s absolutely fatal to let operating the technology, hardware, software, whatever, get in the way of intuitive, creative, personal interaction when working with an artist. Big lesson from the late Phil Ramone.
But this is one place where the tremendous ease of use of the RME products excel. They simply work!
Which allows the job to be done seamlessly smoothly and producer or engineer (and especially those that attempt to fulfil both roles simultaneously) to fully concentrate their focus of attention, exactly where they really should.
On the artist.
This facilitates their creativity and art.
I see producers, engineers, musicians etc. as enablers and facilitators of art.
One of my hero’s (as a Conductor) was Herbert Von Karan, the most celebrated “Super Conductor” of the 20th Century.
In an interview regarding the work of the Berliner Philharmoniker Orchestra he was asked, “what was it compared to others, that made him deliver such outstanding performances?”
I found his reply enlightening, he said “most people that are working, do not really have their minds fully on what they are doing. They lack focus because their brains are concentrating somewhere else. Naturally they don’t produce the best result.”
“When I am conducting, I am fully centred, totally focussed, completely concentrating on what I am doing, and so I believe is everyone else working with me and I believe simply that, makes a discernible and decisive difference that sets us apart you can hear in performance.”
This difference was confirmed to me later, when working with a Double Bass Player from the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra who was making me feel singularly unimpressed. I asked him "what’s going through your mind when you’re playing a Beethoven Symphony?” He replied, “its usually back at the flat, wondering what’s for dinner, beans on toast or egg and chips?”
Perhaps you could give a genuine reason why choosing the most smoothly enabling and facilitating, flexible and intuitively easy to use, Total Package. One that makes it simple and easy for artists to produce art and creatives to demonstrate creativity, for professionals and home recordists alike, would not be the clearly obvious choice?
I am a fan of certain UAD Products. They are great. But the salient point is.
It’s the Total Package that delivers the winning result!
Just like Formula 1 Racing.